Enjambment, A Play

Act One

A Description of:

A One Act Play, in Two Acts


A hidden variables theory of Unfortunate mechanisms is one which does not take the statistical predictions of hedonism (the extreme end of the philosophy) as the ultimate truth about reality. That is, it is an interpretation of the mathematics of quantum physics which does not necessarily go along with the traditional difference between the Copenhagen interpretation and stereotypical hedonism. So Bela Lugosi had to re-situate the Copenhagen interpretation by viewing nature as inherently random, and the process of wave-function collapse as indescribable beyond what our existing equations tell us.

The novel is set in three different epochs:

  1. quantum implicature
  2. many-worlds hypothesis
  3. non-local causation

That is a much deeper mystery, a moral puzzle: teaching in England, Israel, and Brazil while her precious Ammianus, Tacitus, Ovid, Terence and Palutus went up in flames. In the two slit experiment, a series of particles are shot, one at a time, towards a detector, with a double-slitted wall interposed. But before that disaster, "The Dream" is transcribed again, and even though some kind of 'communication' is often said be taking place between two widely-separated receivers, nothing that anyone does at either end will make the slightest bit of difference to what happens at the other.

The aim is to create dynamic virtual networks or supernets with which it is possible to make an exact copy of a particle at a remote location, destroying the state of the original in the process.

(A famous celebrity walks in the room.)

She whispers to her comrade on her right, "He enjoys sucking juices from Doric phrases in order to ask how something like, "When a few words will rescue misery out of her distress, I hate the man who can be a churl of them," ...that's a question."

((This has been bothering me: A Conversation dances across the stage.))

Nomos: Why you are the Desert
N              O                         mo s
  1. Tacitus: i can put you in it too if you want
  2. Tacitus: you'll be famous
    • :: hahahaha
    • :: yeah, put me in the play
    • :: in a non-disparaging way
  3. Tacitus: haha
  4. Tacitus: no dice!
    • :: okay, I'm backing out of the agreement then
  5. Tacitus: too bad
    • :: phineas q. butterfat
    • :: hahaha I don't know
  6. Tacitus: thats what it is
    • :: no no, don't do that!
  7. Tacitus: too late.
    • :: don't do it, please!
    • :: I'll think of something else
  8. Tacitus: : ok
  9. Tacitus: : how about lucretius?
  10. Tacitus: : haha
  11. Tacitus: : Chuck Bronson
    • :: lucrunktius pfefferstomp
  12. Tacitus: : thats too silly
  13. Tacitus: : it has to be dignified
  14. Tacitus: how about "dignified"
  15. Tacitus: :
    • :: dignifed p. abjectus
    • :: how's that?
  16. Tacitus: : ok your name is ::
  17. Tacitus: : it makes a square
    • :: that's my name?
  18. Tacitus: : yes.
Tacitus: Setting prices determining values contriving equivalences exchanging - - these pre-existing categories…. Hold. (with a sort of unstoppable momentum. (That’s… that’s an order!)).
Don Quixote: Assure me that it will be occupied at the earliest; at the thinking of man.
Tacitus: Will you ask him:         “Geeko wherefore art thou?”
            Make    sure       he realizes the grammatical inconsistency of the usage of 



Diogenes: …to so great an extent that in a certain sense they constitute thinking as such: here it was that the oldest kind of astuteness developed; here likewise, we may suppose, did human pride, the feelings of superiority in relation to other animals, have its first beginnings…don’t you dare stop

Tacitus: For Nietzsche, Law was 
 born out of reactive feelings 
     (ressentiment, revenge, etc.) 
     but has been historically “the struggle against the reactive feelings,”    thus while man
                designated himself as the creature that measures values, evaluates and measures,
  (((as the “valuating animal as such,”)))

 it (“man”) moved toward its highest realization;

that “everything has its price; all things can be paid for” in Section 9.

Don Quixote: After we had grasped this relationship, that of valuing things and even people, after it had become instinctual, it took their ‘opponents’ as subjects. Once she said to me, “Within the chateau where Sade’s hero confines himself, within the convents, the forests, the dungeons where he endlessly purseues the Beyond (this first phase of Sade’s thought), it is precisely here among the presuppositions of this hypothesis concerning the origin that we find the Dionysian moment in Nietzsche.

Tacitus: But….

    wouldn’t I argue that precisely because there is not (and cannot be)

any (not one) Dionysian moment in Nietzsche’s thought, 
                   then it becomes basically
                   a matter of different 

Each time I have tried to show how the other 
    two (2) two 
elements were present, what roles they played, and 

                how each one was affected by the transformation in the other two.”

Don Quixote: However, of the real decisions that remain to be made: decisions that are also breaks in which the links between man and his natural being disappear.” 283, we must ask: can there be ‘precision’ or a discernible ‘moment’ in Nietzsche’s characterization of the Dionysian? Doesn’t it simply devolve into “the limitless application of the right of death”?

Diogenes: ….it’s hard to remember to live before you die…

St. Thomas Mann: No! “Followed to its logical conclusion, desire leads only in appearance to the rediscovery of nature. Actually, for Sade there is no return to the natal terrain, no hope that he first rejection of social order may surreptitiously become the reestablished order of happiness, through a dialectic of nature renouncing and thus confirming itself. “ 283.

Don Quixote: But… I don’t want you to be alone down there. With…

Tacitus:              Don’t worry.

    “I have no    doubt    that 
        the combined suffering 
     of all the animals ever subjected to the knife 

((((for scientific ends))))

 is utterly negligible compared with one painful night…
 of a single hysterical bluestocking.”   

                                                                                       I’ll be fine.

Don Quixote: The list could go on, I suppose, but I lack the time. Pain/suffering may have been ‘translated’ into other sorts of experiences (rather than just torture) ‘tragic pity’ or the ‘nostalgia of the cross’ for instance) but it still seems a shame to waste “all those words hurled against a fundamental absence of language” on a “a kind of pleasure—the pleasure of being allowed to vent my power freely upon one who is powerless, the voluptuous pleasure “de fair pour le plaisir de la fair”

     Tacitus: I’m afraid.

 (I can’t conceal my distaste for the philologist in Nietzsche)
          I mean, really, who points out that the German word for ‘guilt’ is, in fact, the word for 


The idea that every injury is in some sense dischargeable, calculable, and can be paid back sickens me.
          It points toward thinking that punishment was designed to punish.   

Don Quixote: Yes, of course, that would be putting the cart before the horse. Punishment was born out of broken contracts when the pleasure of suffering and the ability to vent one’s power was repayment for the unrepayable.

St. Thomas Mann: Why?




St. Thomas Mann: That’s too bad. God is buried in heaven, and he's rolling over in his grave every time you say his name. So, don’t worry, punishment does not have its origins in the admission of guilt, or the desire for repentance. Your punishment is God’s vice. It’s all in Section 6 of the Win-Win-Lose code.

The Critique: That part is moderately saline or salty, I can’t remember which word I plucked out of the metonymic chain for it. Either way, I can’t stomach a flawed God, it is too shameless for me.

St. Thomas Mann: (3:45 PM) im writing a play Fate: (3:46 PM) excuse me?
St. Thomas Mann: (3:47 PM) im writing a play! here is the title
A One Act Play, in Two Acts

Fate: (3:47 PM) shouldn't it be a two act play in one act if its enjambment

St. Thomas Mann: (3:48 PM) its irony.

Fate: (3:49 PM) har har har

St. Thomas Mann: (3:50 PM) its a cut and paste adventure
wanna read the first part?

Fate: (3:51 PM) oh jeez cut and paste how so is it on e2 I would rather read it there than over icq

St. Thomas Mann: (3:51 PM) its not on e2 im not done
St. Thomas Mann: (3:55 PM) i think you hate my plays. you never give them good reviews

Fate: (3:55 PM) yes well, if you ever did something original then maybe I would!
Fate: (3:55 PM)

St. Thomas Mann: (3:56 PM) you are too involved in lockean conceptions of intellectual property 'originality' is a non starter.
building does not found itself on 'origins' but bases... loser !

Fate: (3:57 PM) oooooh... word is bondage kid!

Psychosis 4.48: The combination of Futurism and Fascism involves a theoretical Sidestep. It also involves the theoretical sidestep’s Lesser-known cousin, political consequences.

   Tacitus:       Is our relationship 

rather than antagonistic?  

     Do our 
             sidestepping the dangerous opposition
             between the forces of gender by positing …

a more complete being, what are we doing?  Am I what I am?


Psychosis 4.48: Marinetti calls the ‘multiplied man.’ What does he say? I will argue, in the final section of this life, that futurist androgyny attempts to fill exactly the same gap that Mussolini and Italian fascism do.

Claude Debussy: "It's music on the points of needles." Such synesthetic nonsense? Never. Let's sift our existence through citation: Nabokovian romps, Cartesian dulaity, Bataillean excess, and so forth? And what good comes of it? Are you artists or moribund pedants? What? Bring me the head of Artemio Cruz! Post-haste!

Interviewer: …and Saint-Point sees this as created out of the ‘dynamism of lust’?

T a  c itu  s: No, no no!

It’s more along the lines of Nietzschean techniques

      with an attempt to work through 
      Deleuze’s (re)formulation of Nietzsche’s ‘will to power’ combined with… 

Diogenes: What, precisely, is “the power and self-confidence of a community?”


Well, when they increase…
                                the penal law al-ways 


more moderate;    …every weakening or imperiling of the former brings

         with it a restoration of the harsher forms of the latter.  The “creditor” always

more humane to the extent that he has grown richer in Polemics

Diogenes Laertius: But wouldn’t you argue that the academic practice of polemics is, unsurprisingly, intertwined with a whole politics and morality? Isn’t it true that discussions of ‘hegemony’ and ‘ethnocentrism’ necessarily entail a certain hegemony and ethno (academo-)centrism?

((dissertation on kleptographic nomological deletions))

                                          Tacitus: Perhaps. 

We also believe that the polemical sphere (political, philosophical and ethical) is “an obstacle to the search for truth” 382. The polemicist assumes the position they are, ostensibly, arguing for; ….rather than “searching” for the truth, the polemicist is constantly struggling against threats to its firmly defined position.

Frantz Fanon: But… rather than trying to understand what might be problematic with their own position, they are interested in defending it, shoring it up, entrenching it, making it as unassailable as possible.

St. Thomas Mann: I disagree. I do not believe that polemics “is not on the order of a shared investigation” You might argue that the polemicist tells the ‘truth’ in the form of his judgment and by virtue of the authority he has conferred on himself” 382. Thus, Polemicists ignore the various strains of Nietzsche’s thought, through which various splinterings and subtle distortions…

       Tacitus:                l
                       d   e e   l           a                n
   n                   d d e l                 u                            e  n?
                         D  e   l e  u ze a  n?       z
n                D           e                       E         z ean
                 e   l                                   e    u ?
            ? n           Ul
                                             u          zzz
    ?      z?

St. Thomas Mann: Thus the possibility of a number of relationships between a whole and its individual parts is limited to one fragmented-yet-unified interpretation. It seems as if Adorno ‘unites’ via the interpretive instant both the concept of unity (along semi-Humean lines) and various ‘wills’ to power. Thus, he succeeds in locking things into the position of ‘being.’


Psychosis 4.48: But.. isn’t this the problem? All things are a becoming of…

       Tacitus: …the unification 
       wrought through interpret
       ation, as well as the fragm
       entation and fluctuation cr
       eated by the interplay betw
       een parts and a whole.  Just
       as knowledge of a subatom
       ic particle’s quantum mech
      anical state may be indeterm
      inable (with ‘precision,’ eve
      n while that indeterminacy m
      ay be itself precisely determi
      nable…) the work of art (for
      Adorno) is at the same time
      in        m---ot-I---o-n   and a
      t rest.

Don Quixote: Though not quite either precisely… ?


    Yes, precisely.  

                          As I was saying… 
         can govern a state without knowing its population… 

(( Moheau, for example, who was one of the first to organize this kind of research on an 

   administrative basis,
                      seems to see its
                      goal as lying in 
                      the problems of political control of a 
                                                                                         population.  ))

Psychosis 4.48: Does this disciplinary power then act alone and of itself, or doesn’t it, rather, draw support from something more general, namely, this fixed conception of a population that reproduces itself in the proper way, composed of people who marry in the proper way and behave in the proper way, according to precisely determined norms?

St. Thomas Mann: Perhaps I should return to your discussion of the work of art…?

  T-acitus:           Y-o-u-r c------onnectio----n is u---nclear here.--.. 

Fate: Let me revise: if we examine things at earlier stages, there are more obvious combinations of causes: one may even dominate the ‘object’ (deterrence for instance) the further we move back, the more we can see the tangling of elements. But guilt is also turned back against the creditor… the

creation of original sin, of unfree will… the guilt of the creator about the worthlessness of the world… the will to nihilism, the world as suffering…

Tacitus: the one with the statue?
Boron: yeah hahaha
Boron: "who are you?"
Boron: "I'm the judge and jury, pal, and the verdict is GUILTY!"
Boron: So am I going to be denoted by a bullet indent for the whole play? hahaha
Tacitus: youre just lucky the bullet isnt in the dome kid
Tacitus: the formatting for that section is complicated
Tacitus: you couldnt have done it
Tacitus: :-)
Boron: probably not
Boron: I'm very conservative
Boron: man, we need to just start noding our IM convos
Tacitus: thats basically what im doing
Tacitus: im capturing our labour and making it productive
Tacitus: really im a marxist
Boron: but aren't you alienating us from our own labour by changing the names and reformatting?
Tacitus: thats the idea, its deconstructive marxism: im subverting marxist discourse by participating within its framework
Tacitus: im a disease that furthers the goals of the host while destroying it
Boron: wow
Boron: how does this correspond to platonism?
Tacitus: well, directly, it doesnt
Tacitus: but, indirectly
Tacitus: the same methodological approach can be applied to platonistic dialectics
Tacitus: see, for example, deleuze's analyses of the dialectical mode of division and its self-parodification in The Sophist
Boron: xxxxxxxx

Tacitus: That's Unfortunate.

are you ready to swear?

T ac  itu   s:  God sacrifices himself for the guilt of mankind, 
                                   God himself makes payment to himself,   
                                   God as the only being who can redeem man from what has become 
                                                              unredeemable for man himself—

                                   Hobbes, is nothing more than the final deliberation in a series.

…. .  .   .    .     .      .        .         .       .      .     .    .   .  . ….. 

Boron: It does seem that when considering possible courses of action, numerous ‘wills’ (deliberations) pass through one’s mind. But are these limited to the weighing of possible pain and pleasure, good and evil, in the outcome of the deliberation? It does seem as if something more is happening… will we ever find love? Should we pin it down? Science has so many answers for us.

Psychosis 4.48: Here, we have found it. The creditor sacrifices himself for his debtor, out of love (can one credit that? … out of love for his debtor—). Is this not precisely the escape hatch we’ve been looking for? The definition latches on only to the indefinite quality… as we’ve discussed regarding Heisenberg; uncertainty itself is a measurable, quantifiable property… uncertainty itself is not uncertain… how can we apply this to….


Tacitus:  a return

         :punishment makes criminals
         :more prudent as criminals

---(Nietzsche thinks it is good that it also frequently makes them stupid…  )

Psychosis 4.48Thus, though punishment is undesirable, one of its unintended side effects may achieve something of what it is thought to be useful for. Perhaps we should title it “On the usefulness of stupidity?” Or perhaps, “On the usefulness of sutpidtidy?”

Diogenes: "Your actions or statements are so ironic that they are causing me actual, physical pain in the form of a migraine!"
Boron: Enough! The answer lies here… “All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward—this is what I call the internalization of man: thus it was that man first developed what was later called his “soul.”

Tacitus: Does love, 

first step:         into the light of day as a swamp weed when the swamp to which it belongs 

                                     comes into being

—I mean the morbid softening and moralization…

---------through which the animal “man” finally learns to be ashamed of 
               all his instincts. 
                  Isn’t love precisely this 
                                           … shame?

Fate (quietly, and to herself): On his way to becoming an “angel” (to employ no uglier word) man has evolved the queasy stomach and coated tongue through which not only joy and innocence of the animal but life itself has become repugnant to him—so that he sometimes holds his nose in his own presence and, with Pope

(((Innocent the Third disapprovingly catalogues his own repellant aspects)))

Fate (again, to herself): The entire inner world, originally as thin as if it were stretched between two membranes, expanded and extended itself, acquired depth, breadth, and height, in the same measure as outward discharge was inhibited.”“Hostility, cruelty, joy in persecuting, in attacking, in change, in destruction—all this turned against the possessors of such instincts
Tacitus:      …that is the origin of the 
                                                     “bad conscience?”


Inthestead of being 

(born out of an active confluence of wills to power)

                           “bad” history wants all things to be seen as 
                           evolving out of the need for adaptation.  
                           From where has the bad historian evolved?  

Isn’t it more a rejection of our most touching, most emotionally accessiblework?

Don Quixote: Thus, the history of ‘things’ is a history of reactions rather than positive actions in the world. Such histories deny the world by merely reacting to it; they do not positively engage it… they ignore the essential will to power. That might be a Nietzschean line of thought…how does this help us to, say, keep our living rooms more organized?

Fate: These new sorts of analyses seem to lead to the realization of “the powerlessness on the part of Marxism to confront these problems.” Rather than expanding Marxism, the new critical movements used Marxism as a springboard to explore traditionally non-Marxist areas of analyses using new non-Marxist methods. Thus, while our strict Marxist analyses cannot work their way into, say, domestic politics, our new critical apparatus just may be able to analyze, politically mind you, how the notion of cleanliness circulates within particular, and specifiable, domestic situations.

Lamarck: So, then… isn’t the possibility of a number of relationships between a whole and its individual parts STILL limited to one fragmented interpretation? This might be dangerous.

Diogenes: Who is the art? Which one? What time are we?

Lamarck: …almost Darwinian: the cause of a thing is completely separate from its eventual purpose (a genetic mutation is not a ‘purpose’ though it may lead to a purpose… the mutation of the eye versus the eye’s eventual purpose as an organ of sight). Similarly: punishment was not born from the need to correct behavior, but from the pleasure of causing pain.

Diogenes: Where then was love born?

Tacitus: Well,      generally speaking, 

within the contradiction of the ultimate antithesis of its own ineluctable animal… 

              ------------------------------Nevermind.  ---
   We shouldn’t 
   F orget that the
   cruel spectacle
   for the Gods 

………..still permeates Luther and Calvin… but how?

Psychosis 4.48:Shouldn’t we be ‘reflecting’ (thought as mirror) on the incredulity of humour? The epistemological foundations of laughter… ?

R. Descartes: He describes laughter as “the liberation of the act of questioning” 386. Indeed, questions have now been posed to politics, rather than framed in the language of a particular politics.


      : : : :The will, for a free election, the will itself
      : : : :the final deliberation and subsequent cause
      : : : :of action, is as necessitated as any other 

deliberation.  Thus, “…the will itself, and each utterance (speech act: locutionary, 
illocutionary or perlocutionary) is necessarily determined by…
Diogenes: (no God, no Truth, no Good).

    Tacitus: But… I thought…

Who here is untenable?

(((Hume enters. Hume argues (against Descartes))))

R. Descartes: … that what is called the ‘self’ is merely three relationships between the respective products of our faculty of representation (imagination) and the senses. In effect, we are no more than a collection of memories.

But                                which 
aren’t                             always
our                                  arise 
sense                                from 
experiences                        experience …………. 

of any particular importance?  

Perhaps we should review the notes regarding On the Genealogy of Morals.  

Diogenes: Let’s see… Section 1, man must be made calculable in order to make promises; memory eliminates the action of forgetfulness.

Fate: Of course let’s not forget (actively or otherwise) the cheerfulness of amor fati !

  • R. Descartes: That’s all erased by the introduction (through methodological concerns) of a positive science…Comte would have nothing less, undoubtedly.

St. Thomas Mann: We entered this discussion just so that pain could be justified, and made ‘good’ (life justifying its “evil”…) But aren’t we losing sight of our goal? New forms of suffering, higher, more absolute seem to have been invented; the increase in man’s shame at the world requires forms of punishment that are other-worldly: new inventions of suffering…

Psychosis 4.48: Yes, yes. Mnemotechnics of memory and calculability. We’ve all discussed this too many times before. Doesn’t it seem like more of a challenge to get at laughter and love? Why discuss anything but? I mean… the healthy, worldly form of forgetting is always replaced by the sickly and limiting process of memory… the process of promise making. Why are we focused at all?

(((Hume points)))

One. Forgetting is an active process
Two. Memory and promise making make .man. measurable
Conclusion: Restrict love of fate by predetermining (to an extent) his future.

Don Quixote: You’re so restrictive. Man is formed, by his predictability, and is able to be fitted into society insofar as he is measurable. We’ve moved already… love and laughter, the lightness of a dance, move your feet a little quicker, a philosophy of speed, blood… performance?


This realization of responsibility 
    (founded upon the foregoing considerations
    of political strategy, which have taken 
    for granted that the modern power regime 
    is —a genuine festival)

 …..is of great political significance.

Emile Durkheim (businesslike): He screamed… “Welcome to Carnival!” and was, of course, guided by cruelty. I, on the other hand, always believed that the political significance of the problem of sex was due to the fact that sex has been located at the point of intersection between the discipline of the body and the control of the population. You’ll remember the mention of Moheau above…

St. Thomas Mann: I disagree. Deleuze (who, soon as on that knight his eye did glance, Eftsoones of him had perfect cognizance) cannot be advocating a new form of such a moment. Rather, having been soaked in blood thoroughly and for a long time punishment was, at root, justice.

                    Tacitus: We are not the doling out of revenge, 
                    rather, we are the imposition of the will of the
                    stronger on those beneath the stronger. Our 
                    Justice is not exempt from ‘cruelty’ as such, 
                    but indeed aids and is

…. as He says … 

a substitution of 

                     the perspective of war
   with its contrast between struggle and submission

                     for that of right

   with its contrast between legitimacy and illegitimacy. 

Diogenes: But just what is Kumon?

Glaucon: The Kumon method was developed in 1954 by the late Foucault’s use of the terms ‘domination’, ‘subjugation’, and ‘subjection.’ Suffering can rebalance debts and alleviate guilt precisely because justice implements the calculability of the rule of law and hence there arise the problems of demography, public health, hygiene, housing conditions, longevity, and fertility.

Don Quixote: While chairman Toru Kumon increased the range of the will of the law-makers, of those who make calculable but are themselves not calculable, in this interpretation, he would be seen as normatively neutral. What is ‘just’ is what is permissible by the strong: this is ‘law’.


      So-------------------- would these terms simply be descriptive

XXXXX of the strategic alignments and modes of operation           XXXXX
XXXXX of the various opposing forces in the modern world?        XXXXX
XXXXX Or is it more complicated than that.  Doesn’t Nietzsche’s XXXXX

                tirade against Schopenhauerean 
                pessimism and its denial of the 

world and life
     itself allow 
        us to state 
          that modern 
            power is 

and does not by itself dictate the adoption of any particular normative framework?

Psychosis 4.48: Perhaps, I think it is more complicated even than that… you might want to increase the problem’s dimensions, but I think the correct approach may be to problematize even dimensionality, rather than simply a non-Euclidean approach to the question of nom-rat-ivity and political praxis, perhaps we should approach it with an eye to Mandelbrot and Julia’s work.



          fractfra(((fractal)))ctlafr  --------------------- fractal 
          actal frtclfrtclfractalfrct

examination of political normativity?

Glaucon: Yes, at most, it undercuts one traditional basis of the ‘liberal life’ as a riddle or epistemological problem… The heightening of our capacity to suffer to the highest heights, (originally pronounced “Ar`a*ne"i*dan”) is what really bothers moderns. Perhaps it is better known, however, for an act of violence that predates its sinister christening by 236 years: the day when responsibility was subsumed and became unconscious. Don Quixote: All these concepts: contractual obligations, duty, guilt, conscience; all have arose within the “sphere of legal obligations.” They have all required a certain normative one-dimensionality.

    Tacitus:   ---You’ve—returned-- again to------ 

                     the language of ‘dimension’… is this intentional?

Glaucon: Hmmm.. maybe natural, or even ‘instinctual’. The responsibility of man is the limitation of his natural freedom, after all.

Don Quixote: It does seem that Foucault’s description of the disciplinary origins of modern power is extremely rich and concrete. He produced less in the way of a detailed account of the processes whereby the local, piecemeal microtechniques were integrated into global macrostrategies. Yet, the rapture of the Dionysian state with its annihilation of the ordinary bounds and limits of existence contains, while it lasts, a lethargic element in which all personal experiences of the past become immersed.

              (infinitely? Probably not…) 
                      as you call it… 



Psychosis 4.48:Is this so undesirable, does it really need dismantling and transformation?

                      We aren’t certain (are we ever?)  
                      But that assumption pertains 


                      to the normative political implications of 
                      Foucault’s genealogical description.

Glaucon: How then did he get from the suspension of the question of the legitimacy of modern power to this engaged critique of bio-power?

Don Quixote: It is these notions that require thematization now. We may have to relay what has been referred to as the ‘summoning of jealousy.’ This discourse (on the modern liberal framework) may function, in other words, to mask the actual character of modern power and thus to conceal domination.

Glaucon: We shouldn’t, of course, forget that we could never do without blood, torture, and sacrifices when we felt the need to create a memory for ourselves. (The irony here is, as always, perceived by all). We can always have chosen the correct way, but we always fail, absolutely. The infinite ability to be punished, our ultimate failure, the highest guilt.

                                          Tacitus: Yes, enough of this rehearsal.  Without cruelty 
there is no festival:
thus the l-o—n---g----e-----s------t and most ancient part of human history teaches —and in punishment there is so much that is…… festive! To make suffer, or later to witness suffering, we have ranked a high pleasure.
  • Fate: You can still crash your car into a tree at night, even with this wonderful invention, but from new legends, ones that fill the world with follies and impostures, Johnson has indulged us with cheats; frauds; tricks; impositions; above all: delusion.
  • Glaucon: Haven’t we moderns linked both of these frameworks to the functioning of what he identifies as domination?
  • Don Quixote: The morality of mores is cruelty subsumed and baked in an oven, hardened and calcified, made subterranean, instinctual of the hands of revenge, partly by substituting for revenge the struggle against the enemies of peace and order, partly by devising and in some cases imposing settlements, partly by elevating certain equivalents. While the Greeks invented Gods so that pain would not go unseen, Christians invented Lying, coming undone, betweens; intermediaries… all of these as an intermediary project.


  1. The old French, conissance, conoissance
  2. to the current French. Conaissance
  3. from the Latin cognoscere…
in all of these shells, knowledge (‘to know’) could never be exhausted. The “evolution” of a thing, a custom, ….an organ is route and with the smallest expenditure of force —but a succession of more or less thus by no means its progressus toward a goal, even less a logical progressus by the shortest profound, more or less mutually independent processes of….

Glaucon: analysis: There must never be any lack of real novelty, of really unprecedented tensions, complications, and catastrophes on the stage of the earth: the course of a completely deterministic world would have been predictable for the gods and they would have quickly grown weary of reason. For those friends of the gods, the philosophers, not to inflict such a deterministic world on their gods required our ability to move freely through the universe; thus, our ability to err is absolute.

       Buddhistic denial of 
                    the world, 
              creation of an 
                better despise 
                    this world, an 
          absolute God.  You see 
          present in 
            Egypt, under Pasha Mohammad Ali?  

Glaucon: No, not really… look for instance to when he takes northern and central Sudan and establishes a military
outpost that will eventually become Khartoum, today the capital of Sudan… isn’t much of this a tirade against the idea that Justice and Law had their origins in revenge, in the
stultifying relationship that creates a self-overcoming? It is here, in this historical moment, that we see that it is from within the law that man gets beyond and above the law.

Don Quixote: Through the memory, conscience is born. Promises are ‘laws’ and, in breaking those laws, we remember our duty/obligation not to do so. Thus, the calculability provided by the ability to make promises (memory), the destruction of forgetfulness: is for Nietzsche the birth of the ‘conscience.’ Currently, this has “penetrated the profoundest depths and become instinct.

Tacitus: By making men 

1.	calculable

 he is able to be formed, and fit into society, eventually, the process of making men

2.	measurable

is subsumed and the memory becomes a principle; 

Glaucon: His conscience yells: “Here we knock, deeply moved, at the gates of present and future: will this “turning” lead to ever-new configurations of genius and especially of the Socrates who practices music? Will the net of art, even if it is called religion or science, that is spread over existence be woven even more tightly and delicately, or is it destined to be torn to shreds in the restless, barbarous, chaotic whirl that now calls itself “the present”? He answers: we will never fall back.

Can you like, imagine, if he FUCKED her?